Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chariot (Australia)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. L Faraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chariot (Australia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, single line stub that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Has been tagged as needing references for 3 years. Previously prodded the article but it was contested without making any attempt to demonstrate notability. AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No legitimate deletion argument has been presented. Has the nominator followed WP:BEFORE? Plenty of sources are available: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. AfD is not WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pburka (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "plenty of sources" that you've presented constitute 5 newspaper articles over a 4.5 year period and the youngest is 5 years old. Based on that sort of coverage, I'm notable. It doesn't really demonstrate that the company is notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG per the sources presented above by User:Pburka. Also, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Delete. Notability hasn't been established. What is significant or special about this company to warrant an article? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]